Skip to main content

Strategic Product Displays Across Different Assortment Levels

Abstract

Online retailers often display products across various assortment sizes, yet how to strategically present products in this context remains unclear. This research addresses this problem by empirically analyzing consumers’ information processing strategies on product displays across different assortment levels. We record consumers’ moment-to-moment attention shift and resort to a non-homogeneous hidden Markov model to identify latent information processing strategies that direct the eye movement. Our results show that the latent heuristic and systematic processing strategies can be identified with three unique attention patterns: preference for visual versus verbal information, sampling inertia, and range of inspection. Furthermore, the assortment levels significantly affect the usage proportion and switching of two processing strategies. Lastly, we reveal the strong predictive power of identified processing strategies on product choice. Based on model findings, we conducted a follow-up experiment to demonstrate how firms can influence product choices by strategically displaying products across assortment levels. We contribute to the growing body of literature on heuristic-systematic information processing and constructive decision-making. Firms can use these findings to decipher information processing strategies based on observed attention patterns and to improve the prediction of product choice. More importantly, the results shed light on the adaptive product display as assortment size varies, and offer insights into customized and dynamic product presentation based on attention shift. Our study also addresses the importance of the “anchor product” design when the assortment is large.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Notes

  1. 1.

    Participants indicated relatively high familiarity with the brands chosen (mean: 4.43, median: 4.69; 1 means not familiar with the brands at all and 7 means very familiar with the brands).

  2. 2.

    We select 5 products (10 AOIs) to represent low assortment and 15 products (30 AOIs) to represent high assortment, based on the current literature. For instance, in Iyengar and Lepper (2000), 6 options were set to be low assortment, and 24 were set to be high assortment. In [48], 8 and 27 products were selected to represent high- vs. low-assortment levels.

  3. 3.

    Formulated as (\({\text{InspectionProb}}_{i,j,t} ({\text{GazeDura}}_{i,j,t} )\sim \sigma_{0} + \sigma_{1} FixSequence_{{i,1,..T_{i} }}\)). (Ti is the total number of fixations of participant i.) We use the estimated parameter ơ1 in the linear regression model between predicted inspection probabilities/gaze duration and the fixation sequence. We also tested the correlation between the predicted fixation probability and duration during Bayesian procedures, based on the estimated parameters at 1,000 intervals after the burn-in period (5,000 draws). The absolute correlation value is 0.592, which does not pose concerns for multicollinearity.

References

  1. 1.

    Armel KC, Beaumel A, Rangel A (2008) Biasing simple choices by manipulating relative visual attention. Judgm Decis Mak 35:396–403

    Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Atalay AS, Bodur HO, Rasolofoarison D (2012) Shining in the center: central gaze cascade effect on product choice. J User Res 39(4):848–866

    Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Bettman JR, Park CW (1980) Effects of prior knowledge and experience and phase of the choice process on user decision processes: a protocol analysis. J User Res 7(3):234–248

    Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Bettman JR, Luce MF, Payne JW (1998) Constructive user choice processes. J User Res 25(3):187–217

    Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Broniarczyk SM, Hoyer WD, McAlister L (1998) Consumers’ perceptions of the assortment offered in a grocery category: the impact of item reduction. J Mark Res 35(2):166–176

    Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Buschman TJ, Miller EK (2007) Top-down versus bottom-up control of attention in the prefrontal and posterior parietal cortices. Science 315(5820):1860–1862

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Busemeyer JR, Diederich A (2002) Survey of decision field theory. Math Soc Sci 43(3):345–370

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Chaiken S (1980) Heuristic versus systematic information processing and the use of source versus message cues in persuasion. J Pers Soc Psychol 39(5):752–766

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Chaiken S, Liberman A, Eagly AH (1989) Heuristic and systematic information processing within and beyond the persuasion context. In: Uleman JS, Bargh JA (eds) Unintended thought. Guilford Press, New York, pp 212–246

    Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Chandon P, Hutchinson JW, Bradlow ET, Young SH (2009) Does in-store marketing work? Effects of the number and position of shelf facings on brand attention and evaluation at the point of purchase. J Mark 73(6):1–17

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Chernev A (2006) Decision focus and consumer choice among assortments. J Consum Res 33(1):50–59

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Dhar R, Nowlis SM (2004) To buy or not to buy: response mode effects on user choice. J Mark Res 41(4):423–432

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Dimoka A et al (2012) On the use of neurophysiological tools in IS research: developing a research agenda for NeuroIS. MIS Q 36(3):679–702

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Dubé JP, Hitsch GJ, Rossi PE (2010) State dependence and alternative explanations for user inertia. RAND J Econ 41(3):417–445

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Fisher M, Vaidyanathan R (2014) A demand estimation procedure for retail assortment optimization with results from implementations. Manag Sci 60(10):2401–2415

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Fisher M, Ittner CD (1999) The impact of product variety on automobile assembly operations: Empirical evidence and simulation analysis. Manag Sci 45(6):771–786

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Gevers T (2001) Color-based retrieval. In: Lew MS (ed) Principles of Visual Information Retrieval. Springer, London, pp 11–50

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Gumbel EJ (1961) Bivariate logistic distributions. J Am Stat Assoc 56(294):335–349

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Harte JM, Koele P (1995) A comparison of different methods for the elicitation of attribute weights: structural modeling, Process tracing, and Self-reports. Org Behav Hum Decis Process 64(1):49–64

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Hauser JR, Urban GL, Liberali G, Braun M (2009) Website morphing. Marketing Sci 28(2):202–223

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Henderson JM, Hollingworth A (1998) Eye movements during scene viewing: an overview. In: Eye Guidance in reading and scene perception. Elsevier Sci. Ltd., p 269–293

  22. 22.

    Holmqvist K, Wartenberg C (2005) The role of local design factors for newspaper reading behaviour—an eye-tracking perspective. Lund Univ Cogn Stud 127:1–21

    Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Honka E (2014) Quantifying search and switching costs in the US auto insurance industry. RAND J Econ 45(4):847–884

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Hughes JP, Guttorp P, Charles SP (1999) A non-homogeneous hidden Markov model for precipitation occurrence. J R Stat Soci Ser C Appl Stat 48(1):15–30

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Iyengar SS, Lepper MR (2000) When choice is demotivating: can one desire too much of a good thing? J Pers Soc Psychol 79(6):995–1006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Jeuland AP (1979) Brand choice inertia as one aspect of the notion of brand loyalty. Manag Sci 25(7):671–682

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Kahn BE, Lehmann DR (1991) Modeling choice among assortments. J Retail 67(3):274–299

    Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Kahneman D (2011) Thinking, fast and slow. Macmillan

    Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Liechty J, Pieters R, Wedel M (2003) Global and local covert visual attention: evidence from a Bayesian hidden Markov model. Psychometrika 68(4):519–541

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Lohse GL, Johnson EJ (1996) A comparison of two process tracing methods for choice tasks . Org Behav Hum Decis Process 68(1):28–43

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Meyers-Levy J, Maheswaran D (2004) Exploring message framing outcomes when systematic, heuristic, or both types of processing occur. J Consum Psychol 14(1–2):159–167

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Miniard PW, Sirdeshmukh D, Innis DE (1992) Peripheral persuasion and brand choice. J Consum Res 19(2):226–239

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Netzer O, Lattin JM, Srinivasan V (2008) A hidden Markov model of customer relationship dynamics. Mark Sci 27(2):185–204

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Osborne M (2011) User learning, switching costs, and heterogeneity: a structural examination. Quant Mark Econ 9(1):25–70

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Paivio A (1971) Imagery and verbal processes. Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, New York

    Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Payne JW (1976) Task complexity and contingent processing in decision making: an information search and protocol analysis. Org Behav Hum Perform 16(2):366–387

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Payne JW, Bettman JR, Johnson EJ (1993) The adaptive decision maker. Cambridge University Press

    Book  Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Petty RE, Cacioppo JT (1986) The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. Communication and persuasion. Springer, New York, pp 1–24

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Pieters FGM, Rosbergen E, Wedel M (1999) Visual attention to repeated print advertising: a test of scan path theory. J Mark Res 36(4):424–438

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. 40.

    Rayner K (1998) Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research. Psychol Bull 124(3):372–422

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. 41.

    Ren CR, Hu Y, Hu Y, Hausman J (2011) Managing product variety and collocation in a competitive environment: An empirical investigation of consumer electronics retailing. Manag Sci 57(6):1009–1024

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. 42.

    Schwarz N (2015) Metacognition, In: Mikulincer M, Shaver PR (eds) APA Handbook of Personality and Social Psychol. American Psychological Association

  43. 43.

    Scott SL (2002) Bayesian methods for hidden Markov models: recursive computing in the 21st century. J Am Stat Assoc 97(475):337–351

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. 44.

    Shimojo S, Simion C, Shimojo E, Scheier C (2003) Gaze bias both reflects and influences preference. Nat NeuroSci 6(12):1317–1322

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. 45.

    Shugan SM (1980) The cost of thinking. J User Res 7(2):99–111

    Google Scholar 

  46. 46.

    Simion C, Shimojo S (2006) Early interactions between orienting, Visual sampling, and decision making in facial preference. Vis Res 46(20):3331–3335

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. 47.

    Stüttgen P, Boatwright P, Monroe RT (2012) A satisficing choice model. Mark Sci 31(6):878–899

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. 48.

    Townsend C, Kahn BE (2014) The visual preference heuristic: the influence of visual versus textual depiction on assortment processing, perceived variety, and choice overload. J User Res 40(5):993–1015

    Google Scholar 

  49. 49.

    Van der Lans R, Pieters FGM, Wedel M (2008) Eye-movement analysis of search effectiveness. J Am Stat Assoc 103(482):452–461

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. 50.

    Weingarten E, Kahn BE, Hutchinson W (2017) Color blocking in visual search: retail applications, Res.-in-progress. The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia

  51. 51.

    Wolfe JM, Horowitz TS (2004) What attributes guide the deployment of visual attention and how do they do it? Nat Rev NeuroSci 5(6):1–7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. 52.

    Zhang J, Krishnamurthi L (2004) Customizing promotions in online stores. Mark Sci 23(4):561–578

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This research is supported by Santa Clara University Research Funding.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Savannah Wei Shi.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The author declares no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix

Appendix

Table 5 Theoretical predictions for the effects of variables used in the model
Fig. 6
figure6

Illustration of estimated strategy adoption over the course of inspection

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Shi, S.W., Che, H. & Jin, L. Strategic Product Displays Across Different Assortment Levels. Cust. Need. and Solut. 8, 84–101 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40547-021-00119-8

Download citation

Keywords

  • Strategic product display
  • Assortment
  • Heuristic-systematic information processing
  • Constructive decision-making
  • Eye-tracking